John Mohamed gets death for...

all that commited killings yes thats right way to go

i supply the bullet if they let me exucute him

Apart from hiding behind legal sanction, in what way is your post different to his decision to kill people?

Ian

Ian i am a firm believer in the death penalty if death penalty is decided i would do it no joy nor sorrow for him, my sorrow goes to his victims family's
so thats where feelings are, give him a bullet in his brain

went I or you or Ed O'D or Louis.

I would personally like to "****" his sorry a$$ myself if they'd let me.

One of his victims was 53yr old Dean Meyers,a Nam Vet from the Army 1ST Cav Div,Purple Heart recipient,his left arm shattered by an NVA bullet.

Survived Nam,good job,trying to enjoy what's left of his life and BAM!!!,a .223 cal bullet behind the left ear.

People can lecture and flame me all they want but I'd personally like to end his existence.

"I'm lost, searching for a purpose in my life," the 23-year-old rifleman scribbled on March 21, 1971, in the margins of a hospital menu. "I have a peaceful heart in a world full of violence and hatred."

Meyers eventually found his purpose. A childless bachelor, he sponsored children in Africa. A highly paid engineer, he used his free time to build homes for the poor. An avid outdoorsman, he gave money to protect the environment.

But he still lived in a "world full of violence and hatred." And on a rainy night last October, the man who had survived sniper fire in the jungles of southeast Asia was felled a few blocks from his office by a bullet from a civilian version of the rifle he carried in Vietnam."

Later,Tony

if they raffled off tickets for a drawings on who gets to shoot him they might make a profit. If this catches on I'll buy a few tickets.

you'd really like to shoot a human being, and are looking for a way to do it legally.

Join the military and make your taste for death of value to your country, not an upper class version of hunting addiction.

Ian

No, I'm saying if cost is the only obstacle I will gladly serve and I would pay to do so.

BTW, I've already served my hitch in the military.

Hi, Clay.

Question -- don't I recall correctly that you call yourself "pro-life?" How does that stance correlate with support for the death penalty? I morally agree with Dan, but at least in this case (unlike all too many others) there really is no doubt about the convict's guilt or the heinous nature of his crime.
-- Dave K.

Hi DaveK,

How do you correlate the death penalty for a convicted criminal being morally repugnant, yet support killing babies (until just before birth yet!) who've committed no crime at all?

Hi, Cindi.

>>yet support killing babies <<
Well, apart from the fact they aren't babies yet, personally I don't -- unless the health of the mother is in serious danger, or there's a major problem with the fetus itself. I'm truly pro-choice, and generally not pro-abortion.
-- Dave K.

What does Webster say about BABY?
How about The American Heritage

Hi, Ed.

"Universally" means one exception disproves your thesis (unless you also have your own definition for that word), so its absence from the Webster online definition shows you're redefining language to your own ends once again.
-- Dave K.

for the simple fact that the unabridged Webster's does.

Keep trying but I am not a Progressive Liberal so I don't stoop to attempting redefining words or demonizing or rationalizing by such redefinitions.

Fetus != Parasite
Baby == Fetus

Semi-auto != "Assault Rifle"
Selective RoF == Assault Rifle"

You on the other hand rely on such attempted redefinitions extensively Dave.

If on a jury, I feel I could only agree to recommend the death penality in cases that the criminal is caught and detained in the act or confesses his guilt.

Other convictions, no matter how much evidence, I'd probably vote for life without parole. Unfortunately, too often there really isn't such, it gets reduced eventually.

That said, if death penality was limited to those that were caught and detain in the act and those that confess, I'd be in favor of severely limiting the time allowed for appeals. Depending on how it was worded, I'd even consider supporting some limiting of appeal for anyone confessing.

One thing is always for sure, someone executed will not escape or get a commutation or pardon to get out and do it again.

roger

thats my veiw let his famially support him gets kinda expensive

well aint that to bad ill do it for free

or is that just you declaring it immoral?

How about simple justice? Should not the state dispense justice?

Reread my post, I never declared it immoral. The question I answered was is it appropriate. It is not. Needlessly killing a person is not an appropriate action for a government to take. Does it feel good to the hate-filled, bloodthirsty, less evolved among us? Apparently. Is it justice? No, it is revenge. That much is simple. Justice is complex and doesn't always feel good.

Dan

'Does it feel good to the hate-filled, bloodthirsty, less evolved among us? Apparently. Is it justice? No, it is revenge. That much is simple. Justice is complex and doesn't always feel good'.

I wonder what the families of the victims, picked at random, have to say about this?

Does it make them less evolved?

And what of the evolutionary tree those two monkeys climbed?

as I see it they relegated themselves to a lower level than most of us 'so called' civilised people enjoy.

that being the case they need to be put down, like the wild animals they are.

One of the sins of the mind endemic to humanity is to find the words to turn humans we do not like into non-humans. Be it 'n!gger', 'kraut', 'jewboy' or whatever, we have a long history of excusing murder because the people we want to kill can be made out to not be 'us'.

I don't have a moral problem with getting rid of killers through state assassination. My problem is the number of times after the state killed, it turned out the state had not committed justifiable homicide, but rather had murdered an innocent person.

Ian

'My problem is the number of times after the state killed, it turned out the state had not committed justifiable homicide, but rather had murdered an innocent person'.

that may have been the case in a lot of instances, in fact we in Canada just freed a man jailed 20 years ago for a crime it turns out, he did not commit. DNA testing 'after the fact proved that.

I do not believe this to be the instant case.

I believe that the State had overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence that these two were the perpetrators of the random kills over some extended period of time.

In this case it seems to be that they have devolved from human beings to animals and like any other wild animal that has turned killer, they need to be destroyed.

On an aside I do not believe the 'n, 'k' and 'j' classifications are applicable because this was not a hate crime in that sense of the word.

david williams

in NSW Australia.

The police forces were under incredible pressure to catch the villain(s).

It may well turn out after 20 years that this was all a frame up.

In OZ's case, yes, the guy was a scum bag. A guard was shot and killed as he escaped from prison. NSW law REQUIRES a law officer to shoot at a fleeing felon. It turned out a guard had accidentally shot another guard. He'd have been instanttly exhonerated by the courts, but despised by his fellow guards, so LIED, and a bad person who was innocent of that crime was hung.

Ian

Ian

forget that humans ARE ANIMALS too.

While remembering that one should remember that in nature the fittest survive while due to "humanity" many who should not have survived are free to replicate themselves and pass on those defective genes.

How are the demands of justice satisfied by letting this guy walk? What is justice in this case? How are the scales balanced for the victims and their families? Killing this guy is not revenge, it is what he deserves for what he has done. This is the minimum demand of justice. To ask less is denying justice.

Hi, KP.

Y'all are very fond of quoting the Bible (the Old Testament, mainly -- sort of odd for CHRISTIAN Fundamentalists). How about "'Vengeance is mine,' sayeth the Lord?" Remember what Christ said to Peter in the Garden?
-- Dave K.

It's certainly a part of mine. Last I heard it is still part of the Roman Catholic canon as well.

Hi, Dr. Bill.

Of course it's part of the Bible -- but the tone (for want of a better word) of the Old and New Testament are quite different. For example, the Mosaic Law is quite different from the Golden Rule and "turn the other cheek," and though Christ used a clever trick to prevent the stoning of the woman taken in adultery, it's clear that He didn't have much use for the severe OT punishments. As one priest explained to my Theology Class, the Bible has to be seen as both the Word of God and the history of an evolving relationship between God and His people. The OT is similar to how you instruct a child -- do this, don't do that, or I will punish you. The NT is more the recounting of a mature, more intellectual relationship where "because I said so" is no longer adequate explanation.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET.